Thinking about Archaeology

As an A level Religious Studies student I was introduced to Archaeology by my teacher. She was clearly fascinated by the researches of William Foxwell Albright and as a mark of respect for her I still keep my copy of “The Archaeology of Palestine” and a book by Millar Burrows called “What mean these stones.”

I was fired by her enthusiasm for the subject very nearly attempted to pass my Old Testament paper by my encyclopaedic knowledge of the latest discoveries and finds from sites such as Mari, Nuzi and Ras Shamra. Like many others of my generation I felt this would help authenticate the stories of Genesis and Exodus and would show how the narratives could be located and authenticated as part of the ancient history of the Fertile Crescent.

Oh dear! Fortunately my lecturers and tutors at university urged caution. By the late 1970s I had learnt that a more balanced view of science, literature and history was needed. But let’s just review what was happening in the field of archaeology for a moment. I would put the development of the science in the lands of the Bible in to 4 phases.

Pre 1914 There were scientifically controlled excavations between the mid nineteenth century and 1914. The locations mentioned in the Bible were identified. Sir Flinders Petrie realized the importance of ancient tells,

Flinders Petrie

mounds or ruins – artificial hills left behind by ancient cities. He also realised that it might be possible to work out the age of some of these cities by the style of pottery which was discovered there. Even so much of the excavation of this period was reduced to the search for significant artefacts or even priceless objects. Sadly sponsors of the excavations sometimes dictated what sort of finds should be classed as significant, while the rest should simply be thrown away.

1918 – 1940 A much more systematic approach was made towards archaeological sites. This was a time of large scale excavations. Advances were made in recording techniques. W F Albright devised a system for the identification of pottery and did much to promote inter-disciplinary research in archaeology and biblical studies. In this period the seeds of a categorical error were allowed to germinate. Archaeology in Palestine was considered to be a branch of biblical studies rather than a discipline in its own right. Sponsors of the expeditions tended to be church based and the expectation was that the various excavations would throw light on biblical ideas, events and possibly even personalities.

1948 – 1978 Leading universities began to take responsibility for excavations. In Israel and Jordan universities they played a much greater role in the management of sites. This ensured a greater awareness of local conditions, better treatment of workers and an assurance that sites were not simply looted by foreign organisations. Methodologies continued to be refined, but the shadow of distinguished scholars and their interpretations still prevailed. The classic example of this was W F Albright. Albright used this influence to advocate “biblical archaeology”, in which the

W F Albright

archaeologist’s task, according to fellow Biblical archaeologist William Dever, was seen as being “to illuminate, to understand, and, in their greatest excesses, to ‘prove’ the Bible.” Partly I suspect as a result of his Evangelical upbringing Albright maintained the essential historicity of the books of Genesis through to Joshua. His findings and his lines of thought created an academic atmosphere that was followed by non-archaeologists such as John Bright, who on the strength of Albright’s views wrote a History of Israel – which became a standard textbook in the UK and USA.

1978 – present In the years since Albright’s death, his methods and conclusions have been increasingly questioned. William Dever claims that “[Albright’s] central theses have all been overturned, partly by further advances in Biblical criticism, but mostly by the continuing archaeological research by younger Americans and Israelis to whom he himself gave encouragement and momentum …” The irony is that, in the long run, it will have been the newer ‘secular’ archaeology that has contributed the most to Biblical studies, not ‘Biblical archaeology.’ These days archaeology in the Levant is studied in its own right as a scientific discipline and as far as I know universities no longer have biblical archaeological departments.

I think we need to re-examine our methodology – and suggest as follows:-

Archaeology is a science – it deals with artefacts, soil samples, dating techniques, objects.

Theology may have been the queen of sciences but it is an arts subject

One person may feel that he or she wants to believe every word in the Bible and claim that it is true, that is fine and is an opinion.

Another person may feel that the Bible is a work of fiction, which is also allowed and is also an opinion

What I don’t think we can do is to direct the course of a science on an opinion.

Science inasmuch as it is going to make definitive statements must be the originator into which our opinions may or may not fit.

In other words I don’t think we can make archaeology a branch of theology

But theology may take information from a consistent and complete archaeological picture.

The root is archaeology – a science undertaken by professional archaeologists who may give opinions make predictions on the basis of archaeology not coloured by preconceived ideas about religion.

Interpretation of evidence

In the past scholars were made aware of archaeological finds and looked to see if the data corresponded with passages in the Old Testament. When similarities were noted it was hailed as evidence of a link between the bible and the discovery. All sorts of possibilities were hailed as significant when parallels were found between the practices of the Patriarchs and the customs which prevailed at sites such as Mari, Nuzi, or Ugarit.

A review of such evidence these days usually is far less enthusiastic. Many of the parallels are said not to be relevant after all or at best their relevance has been greatly exaggerated.

The nature of biblical studies has also changed in the years of this millennium. There is a clear move back towards the German attitude towards early Israelite theology, which denies the historical reality of Israeli’s ancestral traditions.

Theology again seems divided. Some see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to be real historical individuals and think events happened exactly as recorded in the book of Genesis. Others believe that the personalities are idealistic pictures drawn for the people in exile to encourage and promote a better way of life when they return to the land of Israel.

Possibly the truth lies somewhere in between.

It is fair to say that the names found in the book of Genesis are unusual and ancient. They are not the sort of names that appear in later Israel.

The customs and practices found in Genesis do give the impression that they are old and many of them are not typical of later Israel. Parallels with customs found at archaeological sites always seem to me to be fairly neutral. They do not provide a positive link between the bible and the discovery, but may show that the biblical figures were living a similar sort of lifestyle governed by similar practices or rules despite the fact that such customs were in existence for hundreds if not thousands of years

There are also those who point out that the book of Genesis contains certain geographical hints. For example the Abraham cycle of traditions may reflect people who lived around the city of Hebron worshipping at the “Oaks of Mamre.” Lot may possibly have been located on the shores of the Dead Sea. Isaac possibly may have been located in the region of Beersheba, while Jacob seems to be associated very firmly with Bethel and Shechem.

However we are now departing somewhat from the topic of archaeology. For me now I still find archaeology fascinating as a subject, but I no longer read its findings through bible tinted spectacles. Archaeology in the Levant has come of age and must, I believe be considered as a subject in its own right. Possibly from time to time archaeological discoveries may illuminate something in the bible and that is a bonus, but it is not a precondition of the study.

Looking where we are

Do we have a canon within a canon as far as the Old Testament books are concerned? In other words are there books we like to read and books that we never, or prefer not to read?

What governs our choices?

The second century heretic Marcion wanted to dispense entirely with the Old Testament. Presumably (hopefully) we don’t want to do that. But where do we sit in this in matters like this?

An ancient ceremony?

When teaching the book of Genesis, after chapter 14 my favourite chapter was chapter 15. What intrigued me there was the ritual which is described in verses 7-12

This chapter is about God’s promise to Abraham. It seems that the patriarch is concerned about who his heir will be. He asks God if Eliezer, his house steward will be his heir.

God responds by saying “No he shall not be your heir…” instead “your heir shall be one from your own body.”

As a form of reassurance Abraham is commanded to arrange and take part in a certain ritual:- as follows.

⁷ And he said to him, “I am the Lord who brought you from Ur of the Chaldeans, to give you this land to possess.” ⁸ But he said, “O Lord God, how am I to know that I shall possess it?” ⁹ He said to him, “Bring me a heifer three years old, a she-goat three years old, a ram three years old, a turtledove, and a young pigeon.” ¹⁰ And he brought him all these, cut them in two, and laid each half over against the other; but he did not cut the birds in two. ¹¹ And when birds of prey came down upon the carcasses, Abram drove them away.

¹² As the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell on Abram; and lo, a dread and great darkness fell upon him. 

This was the ritual which fascinated me because it seemed so unlike anything else I had read in the legalistic regulations of the books of the law or indeed the practice of the temple. I would confidently tell my students that the ritual must be very ancient and would by way of corroborative evidence point to the detail which described the cutting of the animals. In Hebrew the verb used for the making of a covenant is “cut”. One “cuts” a covenant in Hebrew.

In reality and with the luxury of time to prepare one’s lessons with greater care, I would now wish to apologise to all my former students because I believe I was wrong in almost every respect – structurally and linguistically wrong – and it can’t get much worse than that!

Over the years I have also been very disappointed to find that the version of the daily lectionary which I use skips over Genesis 15 completely.

So what needs to be said about this ritual?

Initially I think we need to consider the structure of the chapter. Chapter 15 verses 1-6 seem to be a self-contained episode. There would possibly be no good reason why verses 7-21 should not stand alone.

Scholars from the time of Gunkel regarded the events of the rite as being very ancient. Albright and von Rad in part agreed. More recent research has cast doubt on whether or not Genesis 15 is really about a covenant at all. Lothar Perlitt has suggested that the story is a solemn oath of promise. He maintains that the patriarchal oath as a reinforcement of the simple promise made to the patriarchs belongs to Deuteronomic theology. In Genesis 12-50 wherever it occurs, the legalist Deuteronomic language is in evidence ( as for example in Gen 50:24) This of course means that while the subject in the text is Abraham, the real point of the story is the actualization of the promise which belongs to the theology and expectation of the Israelite community in the late exilic period.

Even a reputable scholar such as R E Clements wanted to assign the passage to a court official living in the time of David. Clements of course wanted to maintain the traditional view that the Yahwist school was responsible for the transmission. He thought Genesis 15 was used by the Yahwist to

R E Clements

reinforce the role of kingship, the possession of the land, and the authentication of the Davidic kingdom.

Many people I suspect will find the reading in to a simple text a much later meaning difficult to agree with, but as I pointed out in my study of Genesis 14, I believe that much of what we read about Abraham is in the hands of editors who were as conscious of the needs of the contemporary situation as they were about relating the events in the life of an ancient worthy. J Van Setters has also pointed out that the phrase “Ur of the Chaldees” only makes sense in the late Babylonian period.   

But what of the strange ritual?  It seems to be universally recognised that what we have here is the enactment of a solemn oath. By passing between the two halves of the animals the person making the oath invokes death upon himself should he break his word and the terms of the oath. Here the oath ritual is transferred to God. The promise of the land reinforced by the oath weighs on him. Although the animals here are ones that would normally be used in a sacrifice, this may be an attempt to bring an unfamiliar ritual in line with the idea of sacrifice familiar to Israelite readers.

It is also interesting to note that Abraham divides the animals down the middle. The verb used for cutting is רתב and is very unusual. It does not occur anywhere else in the Old Testament, although it does appear as a noun in Jeremiah 34:18 where the same rite is described! Normally the word to cut would be כרת and although that is found in verse 18 it seems likely that the action described in the ritual originally used the more unusual רתב

In conclusion I think we have here a ritual of a solemn oath which has been utilised by the author of this part of the book of Genesis to describe a joint action undertaken by Abraham and God. The whole episode has been written in the form of a covenant ceremony between God and Abraham, but the real purpose of which was to give assurance to the people about either the legitimacy of the Davidic kingdom and monarchy in the tenth century  or the reassurance to the people of the late exilic period that they would return to the land of Israel one day. Both of course are depicted as the will of God.

I think today there are very few scholars who would wish to support the idea that we have here a reminiscence of a highly unusual event in the life of one of the first patriarchs.

Thought points

I sometimes wonder if we underestimate the personality of Abraham and I am slightly saddened by the lack of scholarly interest in him.

I was fascinated to find how much emphasis is placed on the patriarch by Islam. There is a whole corpus of literature and information about Abraham in the Qur’an.

Even the Christian Church misses out so much information about him in its lectionary, which I find disappointing.

The Puzzle of Genesis 14

This chapter came in my syllabus when I studied A level at school. It puzzled me because it didn’t seem to fit in its present position. In Genesis 13 Abram seemed to be the head of a small wandering family. True he was accompanied by some herdsmen but when he made the decision break away from Lot and his entourage there is a feeling that his gathering is small. In the same way the Abram depicted in chapter 15 is not very different from what I saw in chapter 13 – there he appeared to be a family centred man concerned about achieving an offspring and a sense of continuity.

Chapter 14 on the other hand appears to show Abram able to call upon 318 “trained men” who went with him in pursuit of four kings who had captured Lot, Abram’s nephew from Sodom, where he had been living. Not only did Abram rescue his nephew, repossess  some of the booty the kings had taken, but he was also received by Melchizedek, king of Salem who brought him gifts.

Over the years I have struggled with this problem and a few years ago I suggested a solution to members of NCCL at one of my talks, which produced frowns from several quarters. So I thought during this lockdown I might conduct a more minute examination of the issue.

Could the chapter be historical or am I the only person who thinks the king has no clothes?

There seems to have been the customary division of opinion between the American and German schools of thought.

John Bright

Albright, armed with archaeological data supported the historical view. With reservations this was followed by John Bright and the American history of Israel crowd. Bright makes some amazing guesses about who the kings really were, admits that there is no evidence they ever led a campaign in the area, but concludes “the incident, authentic though it is, cannot be clarified”  (History of Israel p75) !

Martin Noth, Van Seters and the European school felt that the chapter was midrash, and that the whole incident was no more than a legend probably written in late exilic or post exilic period.

I think I would tend to go along with Westermann who feels that somewhere at the base of the story lies a historical reminiscence of a rescue of Lot, but this has been overlaid with legendary data containing a memory of a military campaign and an insertion which linked Abraham with Jerusalem. Building on that idea possibly I could suggest a division of the chapter.

Division of Genesis 14

I feel there are three elements

1. The report of a military campaign vv 1—11
2. The rescuing and restoration of Lot vv 12-17 and 21-24
3. Melchizedek and Jerusalem vv18-20

 I think from a story point of view relating to the patriarch Abraham part 2 seems to be the most obvious place to start an investigation. Only the verses 12 – 24 seem to be relevant to the rescue of Lot. I think it is also worth mentioning that mention of Lot is only made in verses 12-16! Nevertheless Abram’s retrieval of his ill-fated nephew seems to be restricted to verses 12-16 and 21-24.

Part 1 I find something of a puzzle. Leaving aside the names of the four and five kings, in verses 1, 2, 5, 8 and 9, which I don’t feel are traceable, the passage reads like a typical campaign by a dominant power to inflict punishment upon a vassal state which has either rebelled or failed to pay tribute. There are a number of these sorts of incidents reported in Babylonian and Assyrian royal inscriptions. Similar sorties may also be found in the books 1 and 2 Kings. As I said identification of either the campaign or kings is not really possible. I also suspect that part 1 was not added to the original Abraham legend until after part 3 had been included.

Part 3 – verses 18-20. This I find to be the most interesting gobbet of all. Clearly the location of Salem is to be identified with Jerusalem. Melchizedek (zedek is my king or lord) is described as a priest king of El Elyon. I think there is mileage in the claim of  A R Johnson and R E Clements that Zedek and possibly Elyon may have been the names of pre-Israelite deities worshipped in the Jebusite capital Jerusalem. Certainly the name Zadok seems to have been an established priest in the city when David captured the fortress in 2 Samuel.

It seems likely that when David took over the stronghold he absorbed some of the existing religious practices and clergy of the city.

David, wearing the ephod, (something Saul would never have been allowed to do) dances before the Ark of the Covenant, as it is brought in to the city. It seems reasonable to suppose that David took over not only the political and tactical duties of a king but also the sacral and cultic responsibilities. Where did his authority for such a move come from? Saul had not even been allowed to perform a sacrifice without criticism from Samuel. But Samuel was dead, David ruled in his own capital – free from all criticism and also free to exercise his will over laws both sacred and secular.

However if it had been seen that Abraham had in some way interacted with a Jerusalemite king upon his return from the rescue of Lot and if Abraham had been honoured and blessed by a priest king of Jerusalem, could David’s status be in some way legitimate.

I suspect this short legend may have been included in the Abraham story at the time that David was consolidating his power over the city and its ways.

If part 3 is added to the story in part 2, this surely paves the way to elevate the person of

Abraham, the father of the Israelite people, to a figure of international political significance.

Hunkel and others felt the final stage of the compilation of this chapter took place in the post exilic period. I would agree with Claus Westermann who refers to “a bizarre synthesis of diverse elements stemming from different periods and areas”. The inclusion of the lists of names does rather smack of late Hebrew midrash.

I also endorse H Gunkel’s remark that “the narrative contains in blatant contrast of very credible and quite impossible material.”  

A few thoughts

How would you evaluate the person of David – held in high regard by most? Perhaps I am the only person who finds him less than scrupulous!   

I am also interested in the mystique which came to surround the name Melchizedek – even as late as the author of the New Testament book of Hebrews.

If the story is not historically accurate is it justifiable to use legends in this sort of way?

Tower of Babel Genesis 11

Not a subject I would normally ever talk about. It is a topic that is so frequently overlooked. In a discussion about the early history of Genesis it rarely ranks as important as the creation epics or the flood stories. Attractive as the story might be – it gets rather squeezed out.

Yet it is a story which has excited many groups of ancient peoples. It is a story which seems to be rooted in mythology but with links to archaeology. It is a story which fascinated the German writer Thea von Harbou and film director Fritz Lang to create the 1927 film Metropolis.

In the space of 9 verses the author documents a narrative about the confusion of languages, a narrative which describes the dispersion of people of the earth, wraps it all up with a tower motif and a possible aetiological explanation. That I find impressive.

The motif of dispersion of humans over the face of the earth occurs not only in the Old Testament but in many other places and in some cases it comes at the end of a flood story!

There is an Indian story which talks of 3 sons of one person who was saved from a flood and from the 3 the whole of humanity is dispersed. The Basques possess an old story that language was confused after a flood. In the Irish story of the Tower of Conan the story of  the building of a tower is linked with a flood. There are also examples from Mexico, Columbia and Lithuania.

It is claimed that there are an even older series of legends which simply describe how peoples or even demons attempted to build a tower in order to reach the heavens where the gods dwell. I seem to remember that in versions of the Veda there were demons who laid bricks in layers saying “We will climb up to the heavens.” This of course aroused the anger of the gods who destroyed the enterprise. That story would be much older than the present biblical narrative. The same idea is also present in some African tales.

Despite what many older commentaries on Genesis reported there do seem to have been parallels to the narrative among Israel’s near neighbours. There is a Sumerian text in the “Epic of Enmerka” which begins with a description of the golden age. Enki, the Lord of Wisdom changed the speech in their mouths so that they would no longer have the same language!

I think it is quite interesting that the Genesis account pulls together so many different story motifs into one narrative.

I suspect my archaeological friends would never forgive me if I failed to note the importance of the ruined ziggurats in Babylon. I can remember angering one of my students by pointing out that the Genesis text points to an “unfinished edifice” rather than a “ruined one”. I was duly accused by the 6^th former as “nit picking!” What it is to have keen students.  

Early in the 20^th century the great favourite was the site described by Herodotus of the sanctuary of Zeus Belos in Babylon. However after excavations the real favourite was the ruined ziggurat at Etemenanki. Some scholars though preferred to see the ziggurat Ezida in Borsippa / modern Birs or Birs Nimrud in Iraq as the likely inspiration. I think if one is deeply in to identifying tangible remains of places either the second or third suggestion above ought to fit the bill.

Our problem is that the story is so short – only 9 verses in length and clearly there are three component elements in the story – the dispersion of peoples – the confusion of languages and the building of a city with a tower.

Some scholars think the story as a whole is Babylonian in origin. Others like von Rad favoured an anti-Babylonian motif. Indeed a third group feel that the tower incident is quite separate and does not provide a setting for the chapter!

I feel the story cannot simply be viewed in isolation. It demands the setting of Genesis 1 – 11 as a whole. The theme of disobedience has run through these chapters from the disobedience of Adam and Eve (to say nothing of their sons). Mankind nearly lost it by chapter 6 but Noah was seen as the restorer or preserver of a new beginning. Of course even Noah proved susceptible to drink (one of those stories they never read in church!) His sons did little to help and then mankind set about a tower to get up to heaven and this of course proved the last straw for mankind . It is as if God turns his back on the people of the earth as a whole and selects again – a chosen man – Abraham .

Taking a broad view it’s what good aetiology is made of.

Why are people dispersed across the entire earth?

Why do we speak different languages? 

What caused those great shrines and towers to fall in to ruin?

Final thoughts

How Babel has imposed itself on the English language – to the extent of babbling meaning to talk rubbish, make an incoherent sound, or even a low murmuring sound in the case of water.

Even Douglas Adams in his Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy invented the Babel-fish, which when planted in the ear instantly translated any language by converting waves from the brain in to intelligible speech!

A serious thought – does unification and international cooperation necessarily pose a threat?

If it does, would the fear of it lie with God or with the participants?

Behind the Book of Genesis

Very often one makes passing references to “myths” when talking about early chapters of the book of Genesis. It is a topic which any sensible teacher mentions briefly, throws in a couple of impressive sounding names and then moves quickly on before his students begin the age-old debate about the meaning of the term “myth”

Epic of Gilgamesh

In this posting I will attempt to put a little flesh on these names and then at the end leave you, the reader to ponder your reaction to the word “myth”.

The Atrahasis

This is an Akkadian/Babylonian epic of a great flood sent by the gods to destroy human life.

Basically the scene is this. The elder gods made the younger gods do all the work on the earth and after digging the beds for the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, the younger gods went on strike. It was decided by means of a sacrifice of one of the gods and by a certain amount of input by another that human beings should be created out of clay. Seven couples were made and they set about the work of the lesser gods. But the humans were noisy and troublesome and Enlil, the king of the gods, decided to send first a plague and then a flood on to the earth in order to destroy the humans. Atrahasis, the only good man was warned of the impending deluge by one of the gods Enki (or Ea) who instructed him to build and ark and save himself.

Atrahasis heeded the words of the god, built the ark and took in to it two of every kind of animal and so preserved life of earth

This story was written down in the mid-17^th century BCE. It can be dated, fairly reliably to the reign of King Hammurabi’s great-grandson Ammi-Saduqa (1646- 1626 BCE) though the tale itself is much older and had been passed down through oral tradition.

The Sumerian Flood Story

This is sometimes referred to as Eridu Genesis which tells the same story as the one above, but appears to be much older and has been dated to 2300 BCE. Names of the gods and the characters differ from one version to another. The hero of the flood in the Sumerian account is Ziusudra – but essentially the story is the same.

The Epic of Gilgamesh

Was written c 2150 – 1400 BCE Basically the story is about a great king, Gilgamesh who dropped out of his royal role to travel the world in a quest for immortality. The flood story forms part of the text.  There is a description of a catastrophic flood (even frightening the gods who unleashed it). It is possible that the epic preserves the memory of a devastating flood which caused the twin rivers of Tigris and Euphrates to overflow their banks. Nevertheless, serious as it may have been, this is not a world-wide flood and floods like this, in the Tigris and Euphrates valley were not unheard of. The hero of the flood in the Gilgamesh epic is Utnapishtim. Whether the flood part of the epic is original or borrowed from another source is much debated.

Comparison Chart

Sumerian	Babylonian	J source Genesis	P source Genesis
Gods decree destruction of mankind	Gods decree a flood	Flood is to be God’s punishment of mankind	Flood is decreed by God as a punishment
Nintu protests	Ishtar protests
Hero is Ziusudra	Hero is Utnapishtim	Nero is hero of the deluge	Nero is hero of the deluge
Ziusudra’s piety		Noah finds favour with God	Noah the only righteous man
Ziusudra is warned by Enki in a dream	Utnapishtim is warned by Ea in a dream		Noah warned by God
Ziusudra’s vessel is a huge ship	Ship is 120X120X120 7 stories and 9 divisions		Ark is 300X50X30 3 stories
		Instruction to enter the ark
	All kinds of animals taken	7 pairs of clean 2 pairs of unclean. God shuts them in	2 of all animals
Flood and storm	Flood from heavy rain and storm	Flood from rain	Fountains of the deep are broken up and windows of heaven opened
Flood lasts 7 days	Flood lasts 6 days	Flood lasts 40 days and goes down in 2 or 3 periods of 7 days	Flood lasts 150 days And goes down in 150 days
	Ship grounds on Mt Nisir		Ark grounds on Ararat
	Utnapishtim sends out dove, swallow and raven	Noah sends out raven and dove
Ziusudra sacrifices to sun god in the ship	Utnapishtim offers sacrifice on Mt Nisir	Noah offers sacrifices on altar
	Gods gather like flies to the sacrifice	God smells the sweet savour
Immortality is given to Ziusudra	Immortality and deification for Utnapishtim and his wife	God resolves not to curse the ground again for man’s sake	God makes a covenant with Noah not to destroy the earth again with a flood
	Ishtar’s necklace of lapis lazuli as a sign of remembrance		God gives the rainbow as a sign of the covenant

There are some remarkable similarities here.

Well there we are something to think about when reading the early chapters of Genesis. And there is also an opportunity for you the reader to have a think about the role of myth in the Old Testament book of Genesis.

Do find a friend with whom you may debate it – but don’t get too excited or noisy. I am not sure we can tolerate another flood.

Have a good week.

Question

Does myth have a role in the composition of these early chapters in Genesis?

If they were referred to or even copied by the authors of Genesis – why did they do so?

Masada

Although this topic is not anywhere recorded in the Old Testament.  Having journeyed some way down the Jordan valley from Jerusalem to Qumran, it seems a shame not to travel several more miles to the imposing fortress of Masada.

Masada as it would have appeared before CE 70

This fortress is an item of Jewish history

It is a symbol of national pride

Thirdly it is an archaeological site not to be missed.

A warning if you visit it – it’s hot there – very hot –

If you can’t pick up a tour which includes a visit to Masada you are very unlucky. They tend to get a bit booked up, but scout around and you will often find Palestinian Minibus drivers who will take small parties. Failing that the Eged bus company does have service buses which run past the site, although beware of public holidays and the beginning of Shabbat – you could get stuck there. If you are very rich it is possible to take a flight round the rock – and believe me that is really the way to grasp the size and the strategic importance of this impressive edifice.

• 

  View from the top

• 

  Looking down toward’s Herod’s Palace

The cliff of Masada is an enormous natural block of rock.  The cliffs on the east edge of Masada are about 400 m (1,300 ft) high, and the cliffs on the west are about 90 m (300 ft) high, the natural approaches to the cliff top are very difficult to navigate. The top of the block is lozenge shape and relatively flat.

Josephus the Jewish Roman historian tells us that the site was first fortified by Hasmonean ruler Alexander Jannaeus in the first century BCE. Between 37 and 31 BCE, Herod the Great built a large fortress on the plateau as a refuge for himself in the event of a revolt, and erected there two palaces. The most magnificent construction he created was the famous hanging palace built in to the side of the rock itself. Herod intended that in the event of a siege, Masada could isolate itself for years if necessary. In order to achieve this massive rock cut cisterns were made to store water.

But it is a later event than Herod that has caused the popularity of the site today.

In 66 CE, a group of Jewish rebels, the Sicarii, overcame the Roman garrison of Masada. After the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, additional members of the Sicarii fled Jerusalem occupied Masada. According to Josephus, the Sicarii were an extremist Jewish splinter group antagonistic to a larger grouping of Jews referred to as the Zealots, who carried the main burden of the rebellion. Josephus said that the Sicarii raided nearby Jewish villages including Ein Gedi, where they massacred 700 women and children.

Remains of the ramp built by the Romans to gain entry to the fortress

In 73 CE, the Roman governor of Judaea, Lucius Flavius Silva, headed the Roman X legion and laid siege to Masada. The Roman legion surrounded Masada, built a circumvallation wall and then a siege ramp against the western face of the plateau. According to Dan Gill, geological investigations in the early 1990s confirmed earlier observations that the 114 m (375 ft) high assault ramp consisted mostly of a natural spur of bedrock. The ramp was complete in the spring of 73, after probably two to three months of siege, allowing the Romans to finally breach the wall of the fortress with a hastily constructed battering ram on April 16. According to Josephus, when Roman troops entered the fortress, they discovered that its defendants had set all the buildings but the food storerooms ablaze and committed mass suicide or killed each other, 960 men, women, and children in total. Josephus wrote of two stirring speeches that the Sicari leader had made to convince his men to kill themselves. Only two women and five children were found alive.

Luxurious apartments built by Herod

It is assumed that Josephus presumably based his narration upon the field commentaries of the Roman commanders that were accessible to him.

Archaeologically that may be generally what happened. I find it quite interesting that one of the major archaeological evaluations of Masada was completed by Yigael Yadin in the 1960s. Yadin approached his exploration, it is now claimed, with Josephus’ account clearly in his mind and interpreted what he found in the light of this account. I think we need to remember in terms of heroic myth, in the early 1960s Masada was pre-eminently situated to fulfil that role. Professor Nachman Ben-Yehudah of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem writing in Haaretz in May 2017 has suggested that once the 6 days war had occurred in 1967, Israeli people were granted access to public sites such as the Western Wall, the Old City, the Golan Heights and the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron and these took Masada’s place in public imagination. Even to the untrained observer, Josephus’ account is highly coloured – he records the final speech of the Jewish leader which persuaded the Sicari to end their lives and the lives of the entire community rather than surrender to the Roman forces. I strongly suspect that is what Josephus thought ought to have been said, rather than what was actually spoken.

One of the tracks leading up the hill

Today researchers are in agreement that Yadin came to conclusions that reinforced the overall picture portrayed by Josephus. Some researchers say the problem with researching the site stems from the fact that Yadin did not approach the Josephus account with a sufficiently critical eye In a few instances, it is said, he even cut corners to get the archaeological finds to fit Josephus account.

Significant discrepancies exist between archaeological findings and Josephus’ writings. Josephus mentions only one of the two palaces that have been excavated, He refers only to one building being set on fire, while many buildings show fire damage.  A major problem  is that Josephus claims that 960 people were killed, while the remains of only 28 bodies have been found.

 The year of the siege of Masada may have been 73 or 74 CE.

Stimulus Questions

How do we evaluate heroic myth in 2020? As I visited the site I was aware that a group of trainee Israel soldiers were also there being “told the tale.”

Can suicide ever be regarded as courageous?

A quotation from a general studies paper some years ago “’Too much religion isn’t good for you.’ Discuss with reference to the suicide pacts in USA.” (The Jonestown Peoples’ Temple Cult 1978).

Looking at the Septuagint (LXX) –but what is it?

When I am talking to groups I often casually say “Well the Septuagint…” and maybe I casually add – “the Greek version of the Old Testament – usually represented by the Roman numerals LXX…” and I leave it at that!

So far no one has stopped me and demanded a clearer explanation. But for a British habit of natural shyness, I could expect a host of questions, such as

Why LXX?

Why the “Septuagint?”

Who wrote it?

Which books did it include?

When was it written?

This merry people is going to be a long article, because full answers to all those questions could, as one of my former colleagues once remarked, “take the best part of quite a time!”

Maybe it would be easier if you skipped this article in the knowledge that the Septuagint is simply the Greek version of the Old Testament!

However for the curious..!

LXX = Roman numerals for 70

Septuagint = is a sort of Anglicised version of the Latin Septuainta meaning 70.

Why the Septuagint? There is a legend in a book called The Letter of Aristeas which claims that 70 or possibly 72 Jewish elders were commissioned to produce a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament for Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285 – 246 BCE) for his royal library at Alexandria. I am sure you will be delighted to learn that all the 70 scholars came up with exactly the same translation!

In reality – if this event ever occurred at all, it only seems to have been a translation of the Torah – the first five books of the Old Testament, Genesis to Deuteronomy. I think it is generally agreed that this section was completed in C3 BCE.

Other books were or course translated later, but not at the same time and we are not always sure who translated them.

The Historical Books seems to have been translated fairly carefully, but it is by no means clear that the text the translators were using is the same as the one which is found in in the Tanach today.

Then we come to the prophets.

Isaiah was “freely” translated, Jeremiah and Ezekiel were each divided between two translators. We assume that because the style or the Greek changes in roughly the middle of each. In addition in Jeremiah the Greek text is much shorter than the Hebrew by some 2700 words.

Other books were not carefully translated. Parts of the book of Job are not found in the Greek text and Proverbs and Daniel are from time to time unreliable.

Just as a word of caution though before we make up our mind about the “unreliability” of the Greek text of the Septuagint. There is an unwritten assumption about the criticisms in these paragraphs that the Hebrew text from which parts of the Septuagint were taken, was constant and in a settled form. These days we are used to the Masoretic Text remaining the same and one is always amazed how few alterations there have been in that text over the last 2000 years, but we have no way of knowing if the Hebrew text of the C3 BCE was in such a constant state. Evidence from Qumran suggests that there may have been variants in some of the books.

Which books did it include?

The greatest problem with the Septuagint as a translation of the Hebrew version of the Old Testament is the appearance in the Greek Bible of material not found in Hebrew.

Some Old Testament books are longer in Greek than in Hebrew. The book of Esther has additional material in chapters 3,4,5 and 8 and at the end. The books of Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah are added to the Book of Jeremiah. The book of Daniel has numerous additions.

Manuscripts of the LXX which we now possess include whole books which were not part of the Hebrew Bible. Evidence of these may be gleaned from early Christian lists of canonical books. These include books such as Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach and 1 &2 Maccabees.

It is also possible that we are here only touching the tip of an iceberg. Much of the early history of the LXX was driven by the needs of Jews living in Alexandria. However the real interest in the LXX came from Christianity.

For the early Christians the Old Testament was the Septuagint. Quotations even in the Gospels usually reflect the Greek and not the Hebrew version of the Old Testament. Once Christianity began to fragment into East and West, all sorts of Greek texts were recognised by remote Orthodox communities as authoritative. (The Ethiopic Orthodox Church even recognised 1 Enoch and Jubilees.)

When was it written?

It is not possible to give an overall date for the translation of all parts of the Greek text. They vary from C3 BCE on well into the C1 or even C2 of the Christian era.

In conclusion

Fifty years ago the Septuagint was regarded very much as an add-on to the Hebrew text of the Old Testament and was not taken all that seriously in questions of interpretation.

Partly as a result of the finds at Qumran and partly because of more exacting studies by independent scholars of boos in the Nebi’im and Kethubim that understanding is again under review.  Today we suspect that the evidence from the LXX throws an interesting light on the state of the Hebrew test and ultimately our interpretation of the Old Testament

Stimulus Questions

Many Christians speak of the veracity of the Bible, but when there are such variations in the text (notably books such as Isaiah and Daniel) let alone the numbers of books – can one rely on this attitude?

Given the evidence from Qumran and the text of the LXX should we pay more attention to readings which differ from the Masoretic text of the Old Testament?

When reading passage from the New Testament – especially the gospels – do we ever ask ourselves the question, “How would the author of the gospel know the details of the conversation or the event?” eg Jesus’ prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane? Or the temptation story in Matthew 4 and Luke 4?

The Scrolls from the Dead Sea

I suspect that some people reading this will be aware of my enthusiasm for the region of Khirbet Qumran, the ruins of the community there, the caves and the contents known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. I think it is a tremendously powerful archaeological site and I suspect the photograph of the cave entrances could be identified even by people who have no interest in the land of Israel or religion.

What has been found?

At Qumran itself there are the remains of buildings which seem to have been the home of a community. Extensive excavations revealed cisterns, Jewish ritual baths, and cemeteries along with a dining or assembly room and debris from an upper story alleged by some to have been a scriptorium as well as pottery kilns and a tower. Many scholars believe the location was home to a Jewish sect, probably the Essenes. There have been other theories but this, I think remains the main possibility.

A large cemetery was discovered to the east of the site. While most of the graves contain the remains of males, some females were also discovered. Only a small portion of the graves were excavated, as excavating cemeteries is forbidden under Jewish law.

As far as we are concerned the site was occupied from the second century BCE. During the reign of John Hyrcanus, although there seems to have been a break in occupation from around 31BCE to 4BCE possibly as a result of an earthquake. Eventually though the community reformed and remained there until the whole place was destroyed by the Roman army which sacked Jerusalem in CE70.

• 

• 

The caves above Qumran

The scrolls were first found in 1946 or 1947 (accounts of the exact date vary) when a young shepherd by the name of Muhammed Edh-Dhib was looking for a stray goat. At one point “he was amusing himself by throwing stones. One of these fell into a small hole in the rock and was followed by the sound of the breaking of pottery,” writes researcher Geza Vermes in his book “The Story of the Scrolls” (Penguin Books, 2010). “Muhammed climbed in and found several ancient manuscripts in a jar. Altogether seven scrolls were subsequently removed from the cave.”

Over the next decade, local Bedouin and scientific researchers would discover the remains of more than 900 manuscripts in 11 caves. Each cave is located near Qumran, the farthest one being just over one mile (1.6 km) to the north of the site. The newly discovered 12th cave contained a blank scroll along with the remains of jars, cloth and a leather strap. The researchers said they believe these items were used to bind, wrap and hold the scrolls. The scrolls found include copies of Genesis, Exodus, Isaiah, Kings and Deuteronomy, among other canonical works from the Hebrew Bible. They also include calendars, hymns, psalms, apocryphal (non-canonical) biblical works and community rules. One scroll is made of copper and describes the location of buried treasure. There were no New Testament gospels found in the caves.

Carbon-14 dating indicates that they were penned between roughly 200 BCE and  CE 70. The unique copper scroll seems to have been one of the last to be written. Vermes writes that the vast majority of the scrolls are written in Hebrew with a smaller number in Aramaic and only a few in Greek (although Greek was a popular language at the time).

There is, as they say good news and bad news about the contents of the caves. The biblical scrolls predate the oldest copies of the Old Testament that we knew about previously by almost 1000 years. What is remarkable about the scrolls from the Dead Sea is that there were very few alterations in the text in that period of 1000 years. This is a clear indication of the care and reverence paid to the words of scripture by the Hebrew Communities. Great care is always exercised when scrolls are copied for use by the next generation. To this day the scrolls of the Tanak are still laboriously written by hand

The bad news is that initially the Ta’amireh tribe withheld information about caves they had found in the hope of financial gain.   The great saviour of the archaeological finds was Fr Roland de Vaux the French priest, archaeologist and scholar who was the director of the Ecole Biblique, a French Catholic Theological School in East Jerusalem. Along with Gerald Lankester Harding he gathered up all the fragments, scrolls, jars, potsherds, clothes, wrappings and stored them for safe keeping. The examination of these pieces still continues.

Qumran and the Scrolls

The relationship between the scrolls and Qumran is a source of great scholarly debate. Some researchers, such as de Vaux, have argued that the scrolls were deposited in the caves by the Essenes, who in turn lived at Qumran. On the other hand, some scholars, such as Yizhaq Magen and Yuval Peleg, both from the Antiquities Authority of Israel, who completed work just after the millennium argue that the site itself has no relationship to the scrolls, the manuscripts being deposited by refugees, likely from Jerusalem, fleeing the Roman army.

A lecture on the contents of the caves at Qumran this year by Professor Joan Taylor revealed something of the total contents of cave 1Q. There had been a  vast number of jars (over 70) most of which have gone missing, items of clothing, scrolls and pottery could not represent emergency storing of precious items in the face of an advancing Roman army. It seems likely to me that these caves had been used for decades to house items from the community

Josephus 37 – 100CE

I always seem to refer to Josephus as a Jewish/Roman historian and clearly he is a significant character in any piece of work which seeks to show links between the Old and New Testaments.

A look at his date might indicate why he is so important

The fact that he is an independent source of writing also make him of interest

His life

He was born a Jew. His father was of priestly defence and his mother claimed royal ancestry.

Clearly he was well educated and had important connections with those in power. In his mid twenties he travelled to negotiate with Emperor Nero for the release of 12 Jewish priests.

Upon the outbreak of the first Jewish War, Joephus was appointed the military governor of Galilee. Inevitably the Jewish fighters lost ground to the Romans. In July 67 CE he was trapped in a cave with 40 companions. Josephus suggested a method of collective suicide which the group accepted. Eventually Josephus and one other were lift alive and thehy surrendered to the Romans and became prisoners. By 69CE though Josephus was released and was able to act as a negotiator with the defenders during the siege of Jerusalem in

70 CE.

Josephus claimed that he was receiving divine revelations about the current state of affairs. His revelations also predicted that the Roman Vespasian would become emperor and when he did so, Josephus’ future seemed assured. His revelations also claimed that God was punishing the Jewish people and that God now favoured the Romans. His revelations also claimed that God had chosen him “to announce the things that are to come!”

While the Jews were not totally convinced by this and while for the remainder of his life he never managed to shake off the criticism that he had not committed suicide in the cave near Yodfat, Josephus seemed to go from strength to strength.

He married four times and was succeeded by his two sons from the fourth union.

Scholarly judgement

It seems that Josephus was a conceited, self-seeking changeling who grasped at opportunities when they presented themselves.

Until the beginning of the 19^th century the prevailing opinion about Josephus was that he was a self-seeking traitor.

Interest was revived in his partly because of the wealth of detail in his writings about social, domestic and national institutions around the time of the Fall of Jerusalem in CE 70. Some scholars explored Josephus’ associations with the Pharisees and even archaeologists claimed that information from Josephus enabled them to make important historical discoveries.

Why is Josephus so important to us?

He alerts geographers and historians to the details about Galilee in the period during and just before the First Jewish War.

He is a useful source of  information about the Zealots, Pontius Pilate, Herod the Great, Agrippa I and Agrippa II, the imprisonment of John the Baptist and in some versions of his work James the brother of Jesus and Jesus himself.

He tells us about conditions in Jerusalem, describing carious groups, such as the Jewish High Priests, the Sadducees, Pharisees and Essenes.

By CE 70 Josephus had added the Roman name Flavius to his name Josephus and had become an advisor and friend of Vespasian’s son Titus, who led the siege of Jerusalem.

Josephus therefore was able to give a first-hand account of the destruction of the Herod’s Temple and the siege of Masada.

These events were recorded in two of his important works The Jewish War c 75 which recounts the revolt against Rome and a 21 volume work  Antiquities of the Jews c 94 which tells of the history of the world from the Jewish point of view.

The latter work is important because of the slant he places on the stories of the Old Testament and other legends of Jewish history. He outlines Jewish history beginning with the creation. He includes many ideas that form part of Islamic interpretation of Abraham, including the belief that Abraham taught science to the Egyptians.

He claims that Moses set up a priestly aristocracy, which like that of Rome, resisted the monarchy. Great figures of the Old Testament are presented as ideal philosophical leaders.

To think about

One small exercise is worth following up and that is to read the account given by Josephus of the death of John the Baptist. The easiest place to see this is by following this link – click here

Then compare it with St Mark’s Gospel 6:14-29.

Philo of Alexandria

On quite a number of occasions when discussing an Old Testament topic, such as the writings of an Old Testament prophet or a piece of wisdom literature, I find that quite a new twist to the scriptures we are used to has been added by a number of Greek influences. One of these is usually the treatment of the topic by Philo. He was such an important writer, but there is rarely time to give little more than a rapid nod to his work. Perhaps this post will do something to encourage interest in this amazing character.

Introduction

Let’s start with some dates. Birth of Philo probably around 20-10 BCE and he died just after 41CE

The guessing game with dates is not really a very good start, but despite the fact that Philo wrote a great deal, he tells us very little about himself.

His family have been described as “noble, honourable and wealthy.” He had two brothers and all of them received a good education. This means that they were taught Hellenistic culture, Roman culture, with a fair knowledge of Egyptian culture. Most of all he was well versed in the traditions of Judaism and Greek Philosophy. He was brought up and spent most of his life in the Egyptian city of Alexandria.

If it was culture you were after Alexandria was the place to be. The city was founded in 331BCE by Alexander the Great. Under the Ptolemies (who took over after Alexander’s death) the city flourished as a centre of culture and learning and less than 100 years after it was founded it had the largest library in the world. During the Roman period two of the five divisions in the city housed Jews who read, understood and converted their scriptures into Greek.

Library or Alexandria

Philo is roughly a contemporary of Jesus, yet he never mentions him. Jesus of course was not a philosopher or a writer. The fame and influence of Jesus (except for those who encountered him) did not really come until the Pauline writings were established and the gospels written. By that time Philo was dead.

Why Philo is important for Old Testament Study

Philo’s interpretation of the Old Testament is quite distinctive. He mainly wrote about the books of the Torah, although from time to time he made references to the prophets and other Jewish literature.

Philo used philosophical allegory to harmonize Jewish scriptures with Greek philosophy. The use of allegory had become very fashionable in both Egyptian and Israelite culture. We see examples of it in the New Testament and it is claimed that many rabbis also embraced the style.  In particular Philo favoured Stoic philosophy.

Philo based his doctrines on the Hebrew Bible which he regarded as the source of all truth. Moses was the real medium of revelation. Words spoken by God, such as the ten commandments were the ultimate source of truth, but he felt that everything written in the first five books of the Bible had a divine origin.

Events in the Pentateuch are given an allegorical twist and even specific characters actually represent aspects of human experience. Adam represents the mind, Eve the senses and Noah represents tranquillity according to Philo.

Logos

One of the highly charged words in Greek philosophy is Logos. Logos among early Greek philosophers was the single unifying principle in a universe where most elements seemed to be in a constant state of change or flux. Heraclitus 532 – 475 BCE believed that the world was governed by a divine Logos, but everything else was constantly changing.

It was the Stoics after Zeno of Citium 332 – 265 BCE who produced a systematic exposition of the doctrine of the Logos. It is the key to their interpretation of life, both in the realms of nature and of duty.

Philo wrote that God created and governed the world through mediators. Logos was the chief among them, the next to God, demiurge of the world. But Logos was immaterial, an adequate image of God, his shadow, his firstborn.

In other words for Philo Logos is a unifying principle. It’s what makes the sun come up and go down. It is right reason an infallible law and the source of other laws.

There are very distinct links between what Philo says about the Logos and what wisdom literature, especially the book of Proverbs has to say about the personified feature of wisdom.

Popularity?

Philo’s writings made him popular in the city of Alexandria among the Jewish community. He became a champion of their right and was involved in a delegation to the Emperor Caligula in 38 CE which carried a petition describing the sufferings of the Alexandrian Jews and asking for the emperor to secure their rights.

We know that he visited the rebuilt temple in Jerusalem at least once, but I would suspect that his writings, if they were known would have been less popular among the rabbis there.

His writings had a profound influence on many of the early Christians. Christianity flourished in Alexandria as well as Judaism. Quotations from Philo may be found among the writings of Clement of Alexandria and Origen. Justin Martyr and even Tertullian mention Philo and some would claim that he was a major contributor towards the development of philosophical and theological foundations of Christianity. It is also worth remembering the beginning of the fourth gospel which explores the concept of the Logos and its relationship with God.  

Thoughts

Philo made radical changes to the meaning of Old Testament stories. Is that sort of thing really acceptable?

To what extent do we apply 20^th century thinking and standards to the New Testament stories of Jesus?

Do we have speculative theologians today and if so how do we treat them?